What if global-warming fears are overblown?

[AtomicCEO]

Now that takes balls, given the propensity of your position...

 

Dude, we're quoting scientific journals and Scientific American... and you're quoting globalwarminghoax.com.

 

Your position is a joke. You're a holocaust denier. You're a moon landing denier. You're an evolution denier.

[Bronco Billy]

And let's not ignore this interesting observation:

 

link

 

The bigger scientific sin of both Mann and the National Academy is trying to hide the natural, moderate 1500-year climate cycle.

 

The top science journals since 1984 have widely reported on the 1500-year cycle, which was first discovered in the long Greenland and Antarctic ice cores in the 1980s. Since then, the 1500-year cycle has also been found in the seabed sediments of five oceans, in glacier advances and retreats worldwide, in ancient tree rings, and in historic documents from both Europe and Asia. It goes back at least a million years.

 

The 1500-year climate cycle has no correlation with CO2 in the atmosphere. It has had a strong correlation with the length of the sunspot cycles on the sun.

 

CO2 may be adding to the Modern Warming, but its impact is apparently not large. Remember that our warming started 90 years before human CO2 emissions began to surge about 1940. When human CO2 emissions did surge after 1940, global temperatures went down for 35 years! The Greenhouse Theory says the Polar Regions will warm first, but they aren't doing it. The Antarctic has been cooling since the 1960s, except for the tiny Antarctic Peninsula. The Arctic was warmer in the 1930s than it is today.

 

Is the National Academy of Science fearful that if the public understood the natural climate cycle, the science community would lose the billions of dollars the government now spends on the CO2 climate scare?

 

The National Academy has a massive conflict of interest that is truly disturbing.

[Bronco Billy]

Dude, we're quoting scientific journals and Scientific American... and you're quoting globalwarminghoax.com.

 

Your position is a joke. You're a holocaust denier. You're a moon landing denier. You're an evolution denier.

 

If this is truly "science", then why do the supporters of the "science" use truncated data, intentionally omit data, and when confronted by oppositional data attack the source rather than addressing the data? I've listed quite a few pieces of contradictory factual evidence that the pro-AGW crowd here simply refuses to comment on.

 

And if the "scientists" that are perpetrating this hoax refuse to acknowledge the existence of substantial amounts of data because it plainly counters their poorly founded conclusions, then who else exactly is going to provide that data?

 

As always, when confronted with factual evidence that can't be waved away, the source is instead attacked, exactly as you are doing above. Refute the evidence I've shown of much higher CO2 levels being present in the Earth's past - by more than one order of magnitude. Refute that CO2 and temperature levels were higher only 350,000 years ago than they are today. Refute that temperature cycles are consistent with solar cycles, and that CO2 level are lagging indicators rather than causal effects. Refute that man puts only a miniscule amount of greenhouse emissions into the atmosphere, far less than 1% of greenhouse gases, and that the major greenhouse gas put into the atmosphere by man is one that has a very small impact on warming. Refute the ice age/interglacial cycle that the Earth is currently in and that the current period of warming is exactly consistent with that cycle.

 

You can't do it, because these are all true statements. So you resort to name calling and being dismissive of the source. Typical of weak minded people who refuse to do research on their own, think for themselves, and instead are willing lead by the nose by those who have a clear agenda and stand to profit immensely from the lies they are perpetrating.

 

I'll state it again: If you want to worship at the altar of the false god of AGW, that's your perrogative. You can choose to be as mislead as you would like to be. And that's okay with me. What's not okay with me is when it starts costing us hundreds of billions of dollars, and potentially millions of jobs if this cap-and-trade nonsense is pushed through legislation in the name of this snake-oil idea of AGW, which I and all Americans then have to suffer for.

Edited June 25, 2009 by Bronco Billy

[AtomicCEO]

If this is truly "science", then why do the supporters of the "science" use truncated data, intentionally omit data, and when confronted by oppositional data attack the source rather than addressing the data? I've listed quite a few pieces of contradictory factual evidence that the pro-AGW crowd here simply refuses to comment on.

 

And how come there are no stars in the photos from the Apollo moon landings?

And if evolution is real, then how come a sliced carrot looks just like an eye? How does evolution explain that?

And if Germans really tried to kill all the jews, then how come there are so many left?

 

Your hypothesis is that a vast majority of climate scientists aren't taking as close a look at the data as you, the self-proclaimed expert on Denver running backs, is. I dismiss your theory outright, and feel no obligation to respond... much as I do to these other conspiracy theory nuts.

[Caveman_Nick]

This guy has an interesting take on weather patterns

[Bronco Billy]

I dismiss your theory outright, and feel no obligation to respond... much as I do to these other conspiracy theory nuts.

 

Be truthful at least once on this subject: You choose not to respond because you can't respond legitimately. The theory is not mine, and the evidence is present and clearly presented. The lack of clarity and the willing deception in the AGW argument is plainly put forth. Yet you can not respond with anything other than a reference to Denver RB prognostications and name calling?

 

I'll let your own response speak for itself. It speaks volumes.

Edited June 25, 2009 by Bronco Billy

[Azazello1313]

In quoting your link it says this in the first few paragraphs:

There is uncertainty about the timings, partly because the air trapped in the cores is younger than the ice

 

it seems like the air would be a representative sample of the atmosphere at the time the ice froze

 

And then this:

it does not in any way contradict the idea that higher CO2 levels cause warming

 

and I said as much, that the two probably drive each other to some extent. but the fact that temp is usually leading and CO2 is usually following really speaks to the question of which one predominates in the relationship. that gets lost when a propagandist like al gore shows you a graph and says, look how CO2 levels and temperature stick together! proof that we are causing armageddon!!

 

the point is, it doesn't contradict the idea that higher CO2 levels cause warming, but it doesn't PROVE it, either.

 

and if CO2 were such a dominant factor in climate patterns, how is it that the atmosphere ever gets out of the positive feedback loop of increasing temperature and increasing CO2 levels? if the impact of both upon each other were so strong, we'd just keep getting more and more CO2 in the atmosphere at higher and higher temps until we were like venus.

[dmarc117]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124588837560750781.html

[AtomicCEO]

Be truthful at least once on this subject: You choose not to respond because you can't respond legitimately.

 

I can respond as legitimately as you can. Which is to say that I can quote other sources and pretend I understand the thoughts that went into them.

 

In the end though... my sources are peer-reviewed scientists who specialize in the field at hand... and yours are conspiracy theory web sites.

 

But you can post and post and post 1000 words at a time trying to raise doubt about established facts, and I have a real job... so in your mind you'll always be winning.

 

I'm just here to remind everyone that the consensus of climate scientists in the world is that man made contributions to CO2 are affecting the climate..

[H8tank]

I still don't understand what consensus has to do with science.

[Bronco Billy]

I can respond as legitimately as you can. Which is to say that I can quote other sources and pretend I understand the thoughts that went into them.

 

In the end though... my sources are peer-reviewed scientists who specialize in the field at hand... and yours are conspiracy theory web sites.

 

But you can post and post and post 1000 words at a time trying to raise doubt about established facts, and I have a real job... so in your mind you'll always be winning.

 

I'm just here to remind everyone that the consensus of climate scientists in the world is that man made contributions to CO2 are affecting the climate..

 

:shakinghead:

 

Fine. Live in your fanatsy world where humans are fundmentally evil and stupid, except for white knights like Al Gore and scientists who reap billions of research dollars in perpetuating AGW myths. It seems to make you happy.

 

But don't inject your fantasy world into my or other Americans' real lives through taxation and economic policies based on this utter nonsense.

Edited June 25, 2009 by Bronco Billy

[bushwacked]

If Ginger Spice and some right wing bloggers thought the sky wasn't blue, how many posts and links would Bronco Billy make about the sky not being blue?

[dmarc117]

skeptics growing........

 

The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. -- 13 times the number who authored the U.N.'s 2007 climate summary for policymakers.

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597505076157449.html

[H8tank]

Much of what we have read about climate change, [Plimer] argues, is rubbish, especially the computer modeling on which much current scientific opinion is based, which he describes as "primitive."…

 

The Earth's climate is driven by the receipt and redistribution of solar energy. Despite this crucial relationship, the sun tends to be brushed aside as the most important driver of climate. Calculations on supercomputers are primitive compared with the complex dynamism of the Earth's climate and ignore the crucial relationship between climate and solar energy.

 

To reduce modern climate change to one variable, CO2, or a small proportion of one variable—human-induced CO2—is not science. To try to predict the future based on just one variable (CO2) in extraordinarily complex natural systems is folly.

 

[AtomicCEO]

skeptics growing........

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597505076157449.html

 

Wow! 700 "scientists"!

My podiatrist is a scientist. I wonder how he feels about it. I'd better go ask him.

 

The vast majority of climate scientists (ie. the people who study climate specifically) agree that human contributions of CO2 are affecting the climate.

[bpwallace49]

What does anyone have to gain by this? Does Pelosi have huge amounts of stock in wind farms (like Cheney had a conflict of interest with Halliburton?)?

 

Does Al Gore hold a patent on batteries used in hybrids?

 

What does anyone have to GAIN from this "hoax"?

 

PS- Just something to think about . . . if the Earth is supposed to be in a COOLING period like our resident climatoligist H8 says . . . and the earth temp has flatlined (not increased or decreased) . . . is there some factor that is preventing the earth from cooling like it "should" be doing right now? Is the absence of falling temps (like h8 adamantly says is going on) akin to saying that the temp is rising?

 

ie- if you turn you air conditioning from 80 down to 70 . . but it stays at 80 . . . would you say HA! it isnt getting any hotter, or would you look to see why it isnt getting colder? And what is the variable (or combination on mnay variables) that is causing it?

 

PPS- I dont support cap and trade at all. But to deny that humans cant have a influence on the environment is just ignorant. Humankind has cut down millions of trees, spread across almost every corner of the world, crisscrossed previously natural landscapes with asphalt, and has made certain parts of the world uninhabitable with irresponsible actions (see Chernobyl). While global warming probably isnt as bad as AL Gore thinks, to blithely proclaim it isnt happening either is just as dumb.

 

Somewhere in between lies the truth . . .

[dmarc117]

What does anyone have to gain by this? Does Pelosi have huge amounts of stock in wind farms (like Cheney had a conflict of interest with Halliburton?)?

 

Does Al Gore hold a patent on batteries used in hybrids?

 

What does anyone have to GAIN from this "hoax"?

 

 

what does al gore have to gain.........

 

The Climate Solutions Fund, the cleantech investment vehicle Al Gore launched in 2004, has raised $683 million for its second fund, following an initial $2.2 billion fund. Gore's partner at Climate Solutions, David Blood, told the Financial Times that despite rising economic uncertainy raising money "has not been a problem."

 

"A fear expressed by some is that the first thing to go in a downturn is the nice-to-have sort of investment." said Blood, who prior to teaming up with Gore headed Goldman Sachs Asset Management. "Some people put green investments in that category but we think that is nonsense. This is not nice-to-have--it is fundamental finance."

 

Gore, a long-time environmental activist who last year became a partner at Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, plans to focus this latest fund on

renewable energy, energy efficient technologies, energy from biofuels, and biomass and the carbon trading markets. -- Andrea Orr

 

SAN FRANCISCO — Former vice president Al Gore is becoming a partner at one of Silicon Valley's most storied venture capital firms.

 

Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers said Monday that Gore, a Nobel Peace Prize co-winner and campaigner to slow climate change, will join the venture capital firm in Menlo Park as a partner focused on alternative energy investments.

 

The firm, which since 1972 has backed start-ups ranging from Amazon (AMZN) to Google, (GOOG) has emerged in recent years as a leading funder of such energy ventures.

 

oh he has nothing to gain at all

[Azazello1313]

What does anyone have to gain by this? Does Pelosi have huge amounts of stock in wind farms (like Cheney had a conflict of interest with Halliburton?)?

 

Does Al Gore hold a patent on batteries used in hybrids?

 

What does anyone have to GAIN from this "hoax"?

 

how many hundreds of billions in corporate welfare are getting ready to be handed out?

 

I've linked this article before, but it might be worth linking again.

[Perchoutofwater]

What does anyone have to gain by this? Does Pelosi have huge amounts of stock in wind farms (like Cheney had a conflict of interest with Halliburton?)?

 

Pelosi stands to gain plenty.

[bushwacked]

What does anyone have to gain by this?

 

It's a vast left wing conspiracy. Almost every climate expert in the world has secretly agreed to push forth a false agenda so they can keep their mediocre paying jobs while helping Democratic politicians drive the death nail in their socialistic agenda. Just think about it.

[Clubfoothead]

umm, I don't think you understand how the greenhouse effect supposedly works. it's gases way up to the troposphere, and throughout the whole atmosphere there is negligible difference in CO2 concentration. "urban heat islands" are about the same temp as surrounding areas during the day, but then they are significantly warmer during the night. that is because all the asphalt and stuff is retaining heat. if the greenhouse effect were causing it, the temperature relationship would be reversed -- the difference would be greater during the day, while the sun was shining, and the difference would be less at night.

 

here's the wikipedia page on urban heat islands. you'll notice the greenhouse effect is mentioned nowhere on the page.

 

Um, you limiting your understanding of the world around you to the first atricle you can find in wikipedia is no way to go through life, son.

 

I live in an urban heat zone

 

Urban heat zones are warmer during the day too. The asphalt emits heat, the pollutants from businesses, homes and cars form a haze over the city that also retains heat. Power plants emit more greenhouse gasses to keep urban heat zones turned on. More air conditioners running, more businesses using electricity to produce things that also produce toxic waste. You can reference opinion pieces from wikipedia all you want, I'm not impressed. Meanwhile, the EPA considers urban heat zones to increase emmissions of pollutants and greenhouse gasses http://www.epa.gov/hiri/index.htm, it's all there under the "basic information" tab. And by the way, what's asphalt made from?

 

I don't understand how some people can argue that we are in the midst of some kind of natural heating cycle that is caused by sun spots and solar waves exclusively and that something more simple and close to the planet - human pollution, could not possibly be causing a problem. Even if we are in a natural heating cycle, I don't interpret that as a green light to flood the atmosphere with pollutants and green house gasses, why would you?

 

Again, use less oil, renewable sources of electricity, less pollution. And if your business can't survuve under those conditions, then maybe China's got a better deal for you. China's government is not concerned about much more than social control and the flow of commerce. I can't believe we are on page 7 of this thread and some geniuses are still arguing pollution good.

 

[Avernus]

I can't believe we are on page 7 of this thread and some geniuses are still arguing pollution good.

 

 

I gave up on this thread awhile ago....it has been entertaining, but I'm starting to believe the whole thing I read the other day about people being dumbed down...

[H8tank]

we are in the midst of some kind of natural heating cycle

 

The earth has been cooling for years.

[bpwallace49]

Pelosi stands to gain plenty.

 

From your article Perchy . . .

 

The shares' value represents less than 1% of the Pelosis' total 2007 public and private investment assets, .

 

Yep, she can gain "plenty" . . .

[bpwallace49]

what does al gore have to gain.........

 

oh he has nothing to gain at all

 

Have to agree here!!!!

 

He belongs to a firm that invests in something he believes in? Was he benefiting from any of this when he made his little documentary? No? . .Hmm . . . If joining a business that supports a cause you beleive in is wrong, then what SHOULD he do? get in bed with oil companies like Bush I and Bush II and get involved in foreign wars? Is THAT ok?

 

But that would involve morals . . . .

 

PS guys . . AL Gore is a private citizen now, NOT an elected politician. He can do whatever the funk he wants . . . If he did all this while in office (see Bush and Cheney) THEN you might start making sense.

 

Again, I am against cap and trade and think it is a terrible idea. But seriously guys, start thinking for yourselves and stop quoting OPINION articles written by others.